Gunleaders Blog

What gun owners should know about Ken Cuccinelli

The current Virginia Attorney General wants to be Governor.  For gun owners in Virginia This would be even worse than his tenure as AG.

Remember, Ken Cuccinelli is the candidate who proudly declared he would not defend George Mason University against a lawsuit challenging their campus firearms ban.  Yet after he was elected he betrayed those gun owners who voted for him by flip flopping.  But even before this, he had a checkered reputation on supporting the right to keep and bear arms.  In March of 2010 he issue the “Greason opinion” holding that a city or locality in Virginia could lease property to a private entity, and that private entity could ban firearms.  This is ridiculous for many reasons but among them is that Alexandria Police set up checkpoints to search bags, etc.  These checkpoints do not include only the area for the festival, they include public streets with residential housing and businesses in the “quarantine zone”.  These residents & business people effectively lose their rights under this crazy scheme.

There’s also preexisting case law to the contrary:

“It is not conceivable that a city can provide the ways and means for a private individual or corporation to discriminate against its own citizens…The Judgment of this court is not rendered without the full realization of the impact of this decision on the State Park system in Virginia. The future course rests in the hands of the elected and appointed representatives of the Commonwealth. This opinion follows the law as set forth in all decided cases touching on the subject matter, and it is rather significant that no legal authority has been cited by the defendants to justify any other conclusion. The contention that a normal lessor-lessee relationship should be permitted in leases of public property must give way to the constitutional rights of the citizens as a whole.

A decree will be entered in the form of a declaratory judgment stating the Plaintiff’s rights to use and enjoy the facilities at Seashore State Park have been violated under the Constitution of the United States, and a permanent federal injunction will be granted…” Tate v. Department of Conservation and Development 133 F. Supp. 53 (E.D. Va. 1955).”

When Cuccinelli was challenged on his defense of GMU, he listed a host of reasons.  He had  to do it, they’re his client, it’s the AG’s job, etc.  All of the reasons he’s ever given have been debunked in one forum or another.  Whether you believe him or not, he was under no legal obligation to defend GMU.   Numerous state & US Attorneys General have declined to represent their clients when the need suited them.  For example the UT AG defeated the University of Utah’s gun ban in their supreme court.  Also in Kentucky, private counsel appears to have defended (& lost ) Kentucky University and their gun ban.

Christopher Derek Hunt, Lexington, KY, for appellant.Barbara Ann Kriz, Baker, Kriz, Jenkins, Prewitt & Jones, PSC, Lexington, KY, for appellees.Gregory N. Stivers, Kerrick, Stivers, & Coyle, PLC, Bowling Green, KY, for Amici Curiae Council of Postsecondary Education, Eastern Kentucky University, Kentucky State University, Morehead State University, Murray State University, Northern Kentucky University, University of Louisville, and Western Kentucky University.Leslie B. Goff Sanders, Webb Sanders PLLC, White House, TN, for Amicus Curiae The National Rifle Association.Wesley Reed Butler, Barnett Benvenuti & Butler PLLC, Lexington, KY, for Amicus Curiae Kentucky Hospital Association.

See http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ky-supreme-court/1600102.html

When a rogue judge placed a stay on the NPS regulation 36CFR 2.4, recently implemented thanks to the hard works of over 4 dozen grassroots gun rights organizations, the AG declined to defend the regulation in court.

Should Cuccinelli have recused himself?  Maybe.  By his pre-election proclamations once can certainly say on the surface, GMU would have been better getting private counsel.  Who would hire a lawyer who proclaimed he would not defend them?  At the very least a conflict of interest existed.

Either way, he is unapologetic.  Time Magazine, January 10, 2011, page 16:

The Cuccinelli doctrine comes with asterisks.  He boasts of bucking the gun lobby when he affirmed George Mason’s right to limit firearms on campus.

Cuccinelli continues to defend the actions of Virginia Tech withholding information on a killer on the loose.

Regardless of what other Attorneys General have done, clearly Mr. Cuccinelli will compel his “clients” to go elsewhere when it suits his needs.  See Cuccinelli v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, __ Va. __, __ S.E.2d __ (2012).

The overarching theme here is that Mr. Cuccinelli has a world view that is at odds with gun owners.  For every reason he gives to “explain” his conduct, voters should ask themselves:

How does Mr. Cuccinelli benefit if I and other gun owners believe him, as we believed him when he promised not to defend GMU’s firearms ban?  If we let him “explain away” his bad conduct, we are in a heap of trouble.